Cover not available
Article published In:
Cognitive Linguistic Studies
Vol. 8:1 (2021) ► pp.133–151

Metonymy

Mental simplism and our best and worst instincts

ORCID logo | University of Oregon

This article is concerned with metonymy as a cognitive mechanism underlying our best and worst instincts. In particular, I consider two seemingly opposite processes of metonymy: (1) conceptual bypassing of sensory percepts, which leads to an intuitive leap to abstract insights and judgments and (2) conceptual oversimplification of a social category by stereotyping. By directing attention to that which metonymy is apt to obscure, I encourage the reader to rethink existing models of metonymy that focus on its referential and mental access functions. I offer an complementary account of the functions of metonymy by arguing that mental simplism is central to conceptual bypassing and social stereotyping and by pointing out the social psychological reality of an expressive function of metonymy.

Keywords: metonymy, mental access, mental simplism, instinct, stereotyping
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Olfactory metonymy
  • 3.Metonymy, social labels, and social identity
    • 3.1Social labels
    • 3.2Social identity and social categorization
  • 4.Metonymy as mental sumplism: A unitary account
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations used in the examples include
  • References
Published online: 8 September 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.00069.jin
References
Bargh, J. A. & Chartrand, T. L.
(1999) The unbearable automaticity of being. American Psychologist, 541, 462–479. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bargh, J. A., Chaiken, S., Govender, R., & Pratto, F.
(1992) The generality of the automatic attitude activation effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 621, 893–912. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bargh, J. A., Chaiken, S., Raymond, P., & Hymes, C.
(1996) The automatic evaluation effect: Unconditionally automatic attitude activation with a pronunciation task. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 321, 185–210. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bindra, D., & Thompson, W. R.
(1953) An evaluation of defecating and urinating as measures of fearfulness. Journal of Comparative Physiology, 461, 43–45.Google Scholar
Bossert, W. H., & Wilson, E. O.
(1963) The analysis of olfactory communication among animals. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 51, 443–469. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William
(2003) The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. In: Dirven, René & Pörings, Ralf (Eds.), Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast (pp. 161–206). Berlin/New York: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
De Groot, Jasper H. B., and Monique A. M. Smeets
(2017) Human fear chemosignaling: Evidence from a meta-Analysis. Chemical Senses, 42(8), 663–673. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dirven, René
(2003) Metonymy and metaphor: Different mental strategies of conceptualisation In: Dirven, René & Pörings, Ralf (Eds.), Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast (pp. 75–112). Berlin/New York: Mouton De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eibl-Eibesfeldt, J.
(1949) Über das Vorkommen von Schreckstoffen bei Erdkrötenquappen. Experientia, 51, 236. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Finucane, M. L., Alhakami, A., Slovic, P., & Johnson, S. M.
(2000) The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 131, 1–17. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frisch, K. V.
(1941) Über einen Schreckstoff der Fischhaut und seine biologische Bedeutung. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Physiologie, 291, 46–145. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frühling, A.
(1955) Über das Harnspritzen und ähnliche Verhaltensweisen beim Meerschweinchen. Säugetierkunde Mitteilungen, 31, 168–171.Google Scholar
Gigerenzer, G.
(2007) Gut feelings. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Hassin, R. R., Aarts, H., & Ferguson, M. J.
(2005) Automatic goal inferences. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41(2), 129–140. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haslam, S. A., Oakes, P. J., Reynolds, K. J., & Turner, J. C.
(1999) Social identity salience and the emergence of stereotype consensus. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(7), 809–818. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haslam, S. Alexander, Turner, John C., Oakes, Penelope J., Reynolds, Katherine J. and Doosje, Bertjan
(2002) From personal pictures in the head to collective tools in the world: how shared stereotypes allow groups to represent and change social reality. In: Craig McGarty, et al. (Eds.), Stereotypes as explanations: The formation of meaningful beliefs about social groups (pp. 157–185). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Herrero-Ruiz, Javier
(2009) Understanding tropes: at the crossroads between pragmatics and cognition. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
(2018) Exaggerating and mitigating through metonymy: The case of situational and cause for effect/effect for cause metonymies. Language and Communication 621, 51–65. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hessler, Peter
(2001) River town: two years on the Yangtze. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
Hrbacek, I.
(1950) On the flight reaction of the tadpoles of the common toad caused by chemical substances. Experientia, 61, 100–101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Zoltán, & Radden, Günter
(1998) Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1), 37–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuo, Tsung-Han, Joanne Y. Yew, Tatyana Y. Fedina, Klaus Dreisewerd, Herman A. Dierick, Scott D. Pletcher
(2012) Aging modulates cuticular hydrocarbons and sexual attractiveness in Drosophila melanogaster . The Journal of Experimental Biology, 2151, 814–821. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George
(1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W.
(1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar. Volume 1. Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford California, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(1984) Active zones. Berkeley Linguistics Society 101, 172-188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1993) Reference-point Constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 4(1). 1-38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Littlemore, Jeannette
2015 Metonymy: hidden shortcuts in language, thought and communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lübke, Katrin T., and Bettina M. Pause
(2015) Always follow your nose: the functional significance of social chemosignals in human reproduction and survival. Hormones and Behavior, 9.4, E94314. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lübke, K. T., Busch, A., Hoenen, M., Schaal, B. & Pause, B. M.
(2017) Chemosensory anxiety signals prime defensive behavior in prepubertal girls. Physiology & Behavior, 1731, 30–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McRae, Mary
(2004) How do I talk to you, my white sister? Center for Gender in Organizations Commentaries, 21, 1–4.Google Scholar
Moran, James K., Daniel R. Dietrich, Thomas Elbert, Bettina M. Pause, Lisa Kübler, Roland Weierstall, and Heather Hoffmann
(2015) The scent of blood: A driver of human Behavior? PLoS ONE 10(9), E0137777. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Müller-Velten, H.
(1966) Über den Angstgeruch bei der Hausmaus. Zeitschrift Vergleichende Physiologie, 521, 401–429. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oakes, P. J., Haslam, S. A., & Turner, J. C.
(1994) Stereotyping and social reality. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Patin, Alexandra, & Pause, Bettina M.
(2015) Human amygdala activations during nasal chemoreception. Neuropsychologia, 781, 171–194. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pfeiffer, W.
(1960) Über die Verbreitung der Schreckreaktion bei Fischen. Naturwissenschaften, 47(1), 23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1963) Alarm substances. Experientia, 191, 113–123. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prehn-Kristensen, Alexander, Christian Wiesner, Til Ole Bergmann, Stephan Wolff, Olav Jansen, Hubertus Maximilian Mehdorn, Roman Ferstl, Bettina M. Pause, and Jan Lauwereyns
(2009) Induction of empathy by the smell of anxiety. PLoS ONE 4.6, E5987. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco J.
(2005) Linguistic interpretation and cognition. In: E. Croitoru, D. Tuchel & M. Praisler (Eds.), Cultural matrix reloaded. Romanian Society for English and American Studies Seventh International Conference (pp. 36–64). Bucarest: Didactica Si Pedagogica.Google Scholar
Schaller, M., & Maass, A.
(1989) Illusory correlation and social categorization: Toward an integration of motivational and cognitive factors in stereotype formation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(5), 709–721. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Skinner, W. A., R. D. Mathews, and R. M. Parkhurst
(1962) Alarm reaction of the top smelt Atherinops affinis (Ayres). Science 1381, 681–682. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spears, Russell, & Manstead, A. S. R.
(1989) The social context of stereotyping and differentiation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 19(2), 101–121. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sprott, Richard L.
(1969) “Fear communication” via odor in inbred mice. Psychological Report, 251, 263–268. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tajfel, Henri
(1969) Cognitive aspects of prejudice. Journal of Biosocial Science Suppl, 11, 173–191. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1981) Human groups and social categories: studies in social psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, John R.
(2003) Category extension by metonymy and metaphor. In: Dirven, René & Pörings, Ralf (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 323–348). Berlin/New York: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Wisman, Arnaud, and IlanShrira
(2015) The Smell of Death: Evidence That Putrescine Elicits Threat Management Mechanisms. Frontiers in Psychology, 61, 1274. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wyatt, Tristram D.
(2003) Pheromones and animal behaviour. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zajonc, R. B.
(1980) Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. American Psychologist, 351, 151–175. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zhou, Wen & Chen, Denise
(2009) Fear-Related chemosignalsmodulate recognition of fear in ambiguous facial expressions. Psychological Science, 20(2), 177. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zhou, Wen, & Chen, Denise
(2011) Entangled chemosensory emotion and identity: Familiarity enhances detection of chemosensorily encoded Emotion. Social Neuroscience, 6(3), 270–276. DOI logoGoogle Scholar